“It isn’t about the particular act of cross burning,” he said. “It’s whether the government can move against a particular symbol. Our view is, if you allow the government to do that, there is no stopping it. Whether it is desecrating the Star of David, burning an effigy of the president, or burning a photo of Osama bin Laden, all these powerful expressions, despite their message of hatred, deserve constitutional protection.”
Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore said the issue is about the power of intimidation.
“This case involved two important freedoms – freedom of speech and freedom from fear,” Kilgore said. "Our statute preserves the first and secures the second.
“We are making the statement that burning a cross is purposeful and criminal intimidation that we will not tolerate,” Kilgore added. “If you see a circle or a square burning on your front lawn, you would likely call the fire department. If you see a burning cross, you will probably call the police. It is nothing short of domestic terrorism.”
"
Is this one of those cases in which we have to protect the expression of a view with which we disagree?
It depends on where you burn it. Burning a cross on someone’s lawn is (besides simple trespassing) clearly an attempt to intimidate and is not about speech.
Burning a cross at a rally on private property, OTOH, may be reprehensible, but I don’t see how it can be construed as a hate crime. The first amendment protects the speech of inbred, racist morons as much as anybody else.
The case being brought to the Supreme Court is regarding 2 incidents. One of which is cross burning on someone’s lawn, one is not.
How would you see these as different?
"In the first incident from Virginia Beach, three teenagers tried but failed to set a cross on fire on a family’s front yard.
“It was pretty surreal,” said Susan Jubilee, recalling the incident. “It was like someone was paying a calling card with a note saying, ‘Move out or we’re coming back to kill you.’ That’s the message we took from it.”
Fearing future violence, the family moved from the neighborhood, and now ay their real estate business has suffered as a result of the publicity.
Investigators labeled the incident a hate crime, and the men either pleaded guilty or were convicted in court of various crimes under the anti-cross burning statute.
Four months later in Carroll County, Virginia, Barry Black organized a Ku Klux Klan rally on private property where a large cross was burned. The burning was witnessed by nearby homeowners and motorists along an adjacent state highway. Black was arrested and charged with hate crimes.
At his trial, prosecutors presented both African American and white residents who said they felt frightened by the burning display. Black was convicted but received no jail time."
I thought I had indirectly addressed both cases, but maybe i should have been more clear.
The first case, I believe, is NOT free speech because it is being done on another person’s property, without consent, and with the sole intent of intimidation.
The second case, I think IS protected free speech, even though passing motorists or neighbors may have seen it and been offended. The constitution does not say that we have a right to not be offended.
I think that allowing Nazi supporters to march through Jewish neighborhoods is also intimidating. But it was legal when done in Skokie, Illinois. And the ACLU supported the right to march. That was a real test for me of whether or not I supported the ACLU. I did.
No one controls whether or not you will be intimidated but you!
No, I’m sorry free speech should mean that you are allowed to air your views, but this should not cover terrorizing people. I have to say I prefer the European constitution that allows free speech but has several clauses, especially concerning racism.
It depends, obviously if it is causing no ‘terror’ than you cannot prohibit it but even if it is on private property it can still terrorize people.
Though in theory America should have more free speech than Europe (the UK, Germany, the Benelux countires and Scandanavia), in practice it doesn’t really, with real political dissent often being repressed while the free speech laws tend to protect racists and other loons, who use them to spread hate.
The only problem I can see with cross burning on your own property is if you are in a jurisdiction that requires a permit to burn anything outdoors.
As others have said, burning anything on other people’s property without their consent is different. At least the burning would damage to lawn and you intended to burn when you came on their property. That looks like coming on another’s property with intent to do harm which looks like a pretty good case for tresspassing.
As far as I can see, burning a cross on someone else’s property amounts to terrorism. You’re trying to scare and intimidate someone; a burning cross carries a cultural message in the US of “we don’t want you here and we’ll be coming to get you if you don’t leave.” The expected next step is that the house will be burned down, or something else like that. That’s a crime.
Burning a cross on your own property, while grossly offensive to just about everybody, is free speech and not a crime (unless it’s August in a high-risk fire area).
I don’t think people really have a right not to feel threatened or offended.
If the speech of loons and racist aren’t protected then you really don’t have free speech, do you? Speech that people find pleasant and popular don’t really need the protection. It is speech that people do not like that needs to be protected.
I’m about as anti-KKK as they come, and wouldn’t be disturbed at all if in-breeding caused the pool of bigots to dry up. The second case in the cite, if it didn’t go against any fire laws in the area, is free-speech. It’s pretty damn ugly free speech, but that’s the most important kind to protect, as it’s the only kind that a large number of folks would like to see outlawed.
The first case, on the other hand, feel free to lock them up for as long as legally permittable.
I have the right to say “White trash is ruining America” on my property, all day long. I don’t have the right to burst into your living room and say it.